Comments on:
CBC “Tories would end house arrest sentences for serious crimes: Harper”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/09/23/harper-house-arrest.html?Authorized=1&AuthenticationKey=2_50_57a1e73d-a238-4cdc-960e-ec0fe12abe72.pakcebhmnjlldh#socialcomments-submit
Posted 23 Sep.’08, 9:10 pm, PDT
Harpers' statement, “Listiening to ordinarty people” is obviously right wing extremist code for being based on extreme right wing conservative ideology i.e what Harper and the Conservatives want and not on what studies and professional opinion indicate is the best way to handle these matters. That this is extreme right wing ideology is bolstered when Harper goes on to elaborate that "Our party believes that …”. It is further demonstrated by his statement that “Yes, we believe they're wrong," when referring to the professionals in the field such as criminologists and police.
It is shocking to think that in this day and age we could have someone seriously running to lead this country who out of hand and categorically states, without any objective basis, that the professionals in the field are wrong. In this golden age of human rights and enlightened approaches to society’s problems, this is a throw back to the “dark ages”. Harper’s statements are indicative of the type of ‘approach’ that in a bygone era of fear, superstition and ignorance brought executions in public squares and cutting people’s hands off for stealing, witch hunts and inquisitions.
Lloyd MacIlquham
24 September, 2008
20 September, 2008
- Harper Extremist Right Wing Agenda – Canadian Election
The Harper government’s strategy from the time it took office was to slash taxes to the point that there is no appreciable surplus. This, obviously, was not an accident but a well thought out strategy. For one thing it was intended to make people ‘Happy with Harper’ by reducing taxes. For another thing, their obvious strategy is that any programs promised by the Liberal or other parties, would be attacked on the grounds that taxes would have to be increased to support it. The more comprehensive the policy the bigger the attack. On the other hand the Cons are employing the strategy of ‘a plethora of micro policies’ – small policies that are focused on a small, well defined segments of the voter population, aimed at maximizing media attention but claiming low costs to implement and simple top understand. It also allows them to do this on a continuous basis throughout the campaign. When in power they bring in these micro-policies and claim that they are a party of action and fulfill their promises. On the other hand, their true agenda is brought in through stealth – there are many examples, for example in the last Budget regarding funding for films, the amendments to the Immigration Act (IRPA), criminal laws being extended to the fetus, and others, as well as administrative changes.
In actuality reducing taxes to the extreme is one of the objectives that the paper by Mike Harris and Preston Manning for the Fraser Institute just before Harper was elected and is part of a far reaching, well defined, Extreme Right Wing agenda. They recommend reduced government spending – which Harper does seem t have got to yet.
By slashing taxes to such an extent Harper has weakened Canada’s ability to withstand hash economic times through social policies (enshrined in the Canadian way of life and distinguishes us from the Americans). This of course will be very important in the next year or two. Disjointed ‘micro-policies’ also weakens our ability to deal with large problems like the environment and the economy in a coherent, comprehensive and effective fashion. For Harper and the Con’s this is not a bad thing since they really don’t want to ‘deal with the environment’ but would rather push it off to the individual Provinces ‘À la Firewall’. They really don’t want comprehensive Federal social programs since this detracts from their Laissez-faire, sink or swin, approach to the economy (which, of sourse, one of the major factors defining them as extremist, right wing) which again can be seen in Harper’s Firewall Letter.
Harper's reducing surpluses to zero is actually a result of his sink or swim approach to our economic activity. That is, people should not turn to the Federal government for help when they are thrown into dire need due to economic downturns, they should turn to themselves. This became very clear when Flaherty told the municipal leader to stop whining when The Federation of Canadian Municipalities released a study last November warning that much of the nation's municipal infrastructure is "on the brink of failure" and will cost $123 billion to upgrade. Flaherty responded "we're not in the pothole business in the government of Canada." (see: Toronto Star, "Cities told to stop `whining'", 22 Nov.'07).
Here is one of the Harper quotes – Scary Stuff! it is something that everyone should consider when choosing how to vote:
· Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion… And whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or ten governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be.
o Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994
The Liberal Party has a long tradition now (since Cretien) of sound fiscal management. Further they left the state of the Government finances and the state of the economy in very good shape, far beyond reasonable expectations.
Keep in mind that in Ontario the PC government was touting sound financial management right up to the end of their reign. When the Liberals took office they found a deficit of a billion dollars which the PC had not revealed. These are a lot of the same people that are now involved with the Harper and the Con Party.
Harper saying that Bob Rae “took a slowdown and turned it into the biggest recession since the 1930s” is obvious fear mongering and very much not true ( not to use the ‘liar’ word) .
In actuality reducing taxes to the extreme is one of the objectives that the paper by Mike Harris and Preston Manning for the Fraser Institute just before Harper was elected and is part of a far reaching, well defined, Extreme Right Wing agenda. They recommend reduced government spending – which Harper does seem t have got to yet.
By slashing taxes to such an extent Harper has weakened Canada’s ability to withstand hash economic times through social policies (enshrined in the Canadian way of life and distinguishes us from the Americans). This of course will be very important in the next year or two. Disjointed ‘micro-policies’ also weakens our ability to deal with large problems like the environment and the economy in a coherent, comprehensive and effective fashion. For Harper and the Con’s this is not a bad thing since they really don’t want to ‘deal with the environment’ but would rather push it off to the individual Provinces ‘À la Firewall’. They really don’t want comprehensive Federal social programs since this detracts from their Laissez-faire, sink or swin, approach to the economy (which, of sourse, one of the major factors defining them as extremist, right wing) which again can be seen in Harper’s Firewall Letter.
Harper's reducing surpluses to zero is actually a result of his sink or swim approach to our economic activity. That is, people should not turn to the Federal government for help when they are thrown into dire need due to economic downturns, they should turn to themselves. This became very clear when Flaherty told the municipal leader to stop whining when The Federation of Canadian Municipalities released a study last November warning that much of the nation's municipal infrastructure is "on the brink of failure" and will cost $123 billion to upgrade. Flaherty responded "we're not in the pothole business in the government of Canada." (see: Toronto Star, "Cities told to stop `whining'", 22 Nov.'07).
Here is one of the Harper quotes – Scary Stuff! it is something that everyone should consider when choosing how to vote:
· Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion… And whether Canada ends up with one national government or two governments or ten governments, the Canadian people will require less government no matter what the constitutional status or arrangement of any future country may be.
o Speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994
The Liberal Party has a long tradition now (since Cretien) of sound fiscal management. Further they left the state of the Government finances and the state of the economy in very good shape, far beyond reasonable expectations.
Keep in mind that in Ontario the PC government was touting sound financial management right up to the end of their reign. When the Liberals took office they found a deficit of a billion dollars which the PC had not revealed. These are a lot of the same people that are now involved with the Harper and the Con Party.
Harper saying that Bob Rae “took a slowdown and turned it into the biggest recession since the 1930s” is obvious fear mongering and very much not true ( not to use the ‘liar’ word) .
17 September, 2008
- The Harper One-Man-Show Government - Is Good for a Banana Republic – Canadian Election
Submitted:
http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/politicseconomy/assign_us.html
17 Sep.’08 – 9:23pm (PDT)
*************
I drafted this comment for Your Turn – 17 Sep.’08, but it ended before I was finished:.
I agree with the previous caller that suggested that it is the people the leader surrounds himself with that indicates a good leader.
To elaborate, in a modern democratic society that is based on a developed economy, running the government is simply too complex to have a “one person show” at the head of the government. Perhaps some ‘Banana Republic’ dictatorship can get by with one person making all the decisions, but not Canada.
Delegation of duties and authority is the hallmark of good leadership. Harper is very much a ‘one man show’ running the government. The Conservatives simply don’t have the depth on their bench to delegate responsibility. This may be inferred from Harper’s own actions to restrict his Ministers while Prime Minister – if they had the talent then why wouldn’t he use them. It is also made manifest with the Maxim Bernier affair. This also explains why Harper and his Conservatives avoid discussing issues head on, but try to obscure and obstruct with insults.
It is very clear, as demonstrated during the Liberal Leadership Race and after, that the Liberal Party has an abundance of talent. Further, the Liberal Party knows how to delegate authority as demonstrated during the Jean Chrétien era. The Harper style of leadership may be well suited for some third world Banana Republic but for Canada it is suggested that Stephane Dion and the Liberal Team is the best choice.
Lloyd MacIlquham
http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/politicseconomy/assign_us.html
17 Sep.’08 – 9:23pm (PDT)
*************
I drafted this comment for Your Turn – 17 Sep.’08, but it ended before I was finished:.
I agree with the previous caller that suggested that it is the people the leader surrounds himself with that indicates a good leader.
To elaborate, in a modern democratic society that is based on a developed economy, running the government is simply too complex to have a “one person show” at the head of the government. Perhaps some ‘Banana Republic’ dictatorship can get by with one person making all the decisions, but not Canada.
Delegation of duties and authority is the hallmark of good leadership. Harper is very much a ‘one man show’ running the government. The Conservatives simply don’t have the depth on their bench to delegate responsibility. This may be inferred from Harper’s own actions to restrict his Ministers while Prime Minister – if they had the talent then why wouldn’t he use them. It is also made manifest with the Maxim Bernier affair. This also explains why Harper and his Conservatives avoid discussing issues head on, but try to obscure and obstruct with insults.
It is very clear, as demonstrated during the Liberal Leadership Race and after, that the Liberal Party has an abundance of talent. Further, the Liberal Party knows how to delegate authority as demonstrated during the Jean Chrétien era. The Harper style of leadership may be well suited for some third world Banana Republic but for Canada it is suggested that Stephane Dion and the Liberal Team is the best choice.
Lloyd MacIlquham
24. Great Balls of Fear Mongering, Batman - Canadian Election
Meanwhile, in the Batcave, Batman and Robin are discussing the Canadian Election including the Speech by Danny Williams, Harper extremist right wing,conservative Hidden Agenda, the In-and-out election financing scheme and the Harper strategy of addressing important issues with insults.
Robin: Holy forebodings, Batman, I see Danny Williams, Premier of Newfoundland is warning that “a majority government for Stephen Harper would be one of the most negative political events in Canadian history.”
Batman: That’s right, Robin,
Mr. Williams is very upset because of promises made by Harper in the last election which he promptly broke after gaining power.
Robin: Didn’t we cover that in our segment “Holy Flip-Flops Batman! When Is A Promise Not A Promise”, Batman, back in January ‘07
Batman: Good memory, Robin! Harper tried to explain away his broken promise by suggesting that he had only been expressing a preference during the election.
Robin: Holy Duplicity, Batman, did anyone fall for this somewhat simplistic deception.
Batman: Certainly the Premier of Newfoundland didn’t, Robin and, as I recall, at the time he vowed to expose Harper during the election, which he is doing.
Robin: He certainly is not mincing words, Batman. He’s coming right out and calling Harper a ‘Fraud’.
Batman: Good observation, Robin. This is based on Stephen Harper’s own campaign literature proclaiming, "There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept."
Robin: But Harper and the Con’s have broken other promises as well, Batman.
Batman: Yes, Robin, in my count, Harper has broken numerous promises since acquiring power, not the least of which, aside from Mr. Williams’ complaint is the Income Trust disaster, to the point of indicating an underlying design.
Robin: How so, Batman.
Batman: Well, Robin, by promising the people of Canada whatever he thinks they want to hear, without the intention of keep it if elected, and saying whatever he thinks is necessary, without the concern for its truth, in order to get them to vote for him and the Con’s.
Robin: Holy “Blue Shaft”, Batman, how can Harper and the Con’s get away with that.
Batman: “Blue Shaft”, Robin? That’s Williams’ line, perhaps you can use something like “Holy Con-Job”. Robin: Thanks, Batman.
Holy “Con-Job”, Batman, how can Harper and the Con’s get away with that.
Batman: By not voting them into power, Robin, and that is exactly what Mr. Williams is talking about and why he refers to a majority Harper government
as “one of the most negative political events in Canadian history.”
Robin: Batman, what are others saying about all this?
Batman: Well, Robin, many people are speaking out.
Robin: Who, who, Batman?
Batman: At the start of this election Campaign Harper said that Dion would increase the GST.
Robin: Not the insidious GST, brought in by the last Conservative government.
Batman: Yes, Robin. Dion immediately responded by, quite unequivocally, stating that Harper was a liar.
Robin: Was he, … I mean, lying, Batman.
Batman: Well, Robin, one might expect that most people would,
when accused of lying, be quick to defend their statement, if indeed it is defensible. Harper has simply seemed to have shrugged it off
- a further indication that these are not mistakes but well thought out and executed attacks with total disregard for whether there is any truth to it.
Robin: Holy ‘Dirty Politics’, Batman, you mean there’s more.
Batman: There are more examples than bats in a belfry, Robin.
When the Harper team attacked the integrity of the father of a fallen war hero, Robin, even Layton felt compelled to point out that “the public only has to listen to the way that Conservative MPs and Harper conduct themselves in the House of Commons.
If you disagree with them, you are open season for an insult.” (Toronto Star, 11 Sep’08).
Then there’s the In-and-Out Election financing scheme, Robin. Harper and the Con’s response was to not only attack the integrity of other Parties, by asserting that they did the
same thing, which is apparently not the case at all, but also that of one of Canada’s most internationally respected institutions – Elections Canada, by accusing them of being biased towards the Liberals.
If Harper and the Con’s really believe that they are not
running afoul of election financing rules then perhaps Harper can show some leadership by stating that the Con’s will be doing the same thing in this election. By not so doing one might infer that these are carefully contrived and executed attacks designed to deflect attention from the real issue.
When Dion announced his Green Shift plan, the Harper response was anything but informed, open and transparent. His comment was "Mr. Dion's policies are crazy. This is crazy economics. It's crazy environmental policy." His ‘considered’ assessment of the plan, as Prime
Minister of Canada, and an economist by training, was that it would “screw everybody across the country”.
Robin: Great Ball of Fear Mongering, Batman. How can the Prime Minister of our great land respond to such important issues with such vulgarities,
devoid of any considered, enlightened or informed thought, but focused entirely on insults and fear mongering.
Batman: These are not slips of the tongue, Robin, but carefully contrived and executed attacks with the intention of playing on people’s fears and
thereby acquiring power, of deflecting attention away from an open and informed discussion of the issues and, of dealing with matters to the benefit of a few and detriment of many.
Robin: Holy, right wing extremism, Batman. Why all the obstruction and obscuration.
Why doesn’t Harper encourage open, informed and transparent discussion of the issues.
Batman: Well, Robin, perhaps they fear people will see them for what they really are – extremist, right wing conservative.
Robin: Great Fraudian Slips, Batman. Then Harper saying the other day that he and the Cons’ “want to pull Canadians towards conservatives” is really a concern that Canadians will begin to realize the extent of their “Hidden Agenda” to make Canada extreme, right wing, conservative.
Batman: Yes, you have something there, Robin. It is how they think and approach everything.
Robin: And when Harper says in his new Ad “investments that will produce results”, ‘results’ refers to implementing the their extreme Conservative Agenda and make our great nation conservative.
Batman: You’re catching on, Robin. And there’s more, Robin. Now Harper is saying the Green Shift will plunge Canada into a recession and destroy national unity causing “all kinds of political tensions across the country."
Robin: Holy ‘hidden meaning’,
Batman, just what does Harper mean by “all kinds of political tensions across the country." It sounds like some kind of right wing extremist code to me.
Batman: Well, Robin, ever since the Firewall letter it has become clearer and clearer that Harper’s intention is to
shift power to the Provinces, in particular, Alberta and weaken Federalism. It appears, that it plays well in Quebec is a bonus for them and they use Quebec as a cover to obscure their real agenda and shift power to Alberta and isolate it from the rest of Canada.
Harper’s inaction on Green House Gas issues, is a prime example of this overall strategy.
Robin: How so, Batman?
Batman: Well, Robin, by not taking action Federally it forces each Province to enact their own policies to reduce
Green-House-Gases, including Alberta. That, in turn gives the Federal government an excuse not to get involved and makes it much more difficult to implement any plan for the overall good of the country.
Robin: Holy ‘Clarity’, Batman, you might say it’s an issue of:
“Each Province acting unilaterally and in its own interest does not a Nation make.”
Robin: What can we do, Batman.
Batman: We can only beseech each and every Canadian to think carefully before casting their vote, especially giving Harper and the Con’s a majority gov’t.
We've got to get our Canada back, Robin, before it's too late.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 15 September, 2008 (2008-09-15)
Robin: Holy forebodings, Batman, I see Danny Williams, Premier of Newfoundland is warning that “a majority government for Stephen Harper would be one of the most negative political events in Canadian history.”
Batman: That’s right, Robin,
Mr. Williams is very upset because of promises made by Harper in the last election which he promptly broke after gaining power.
Robin: Didn’t we cover that in our segment “Holy Flip-Flops Batman! When Is A Promise Not A Promise”, Batman, back in January ‘07
Batman: Good memory, Robin! Harper tried to explain away his broken promise by suggesting that he had only been expressing a preference during the election.
Robin: Holy Duplicity, Batman, did anyone fall for this somewhat simplistic deception.
Batman: Certainly the Premier of Newfoundland didn’t, Robin and, as I recall, at the time he vowed to expose Harper during the election, which he is doing.
Robin: He certainly is not mincing words, Batman. He’s coming right out and calling Harper a ‘Fraud’.
Batman: Good observation, Robin. This is based on Stephen Harper’s own campaign literature proclaiming, "There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept."
Robin: But Harper and the Con’s have broken other promises as well, Batman.
Batman: Yes, Robin, in my count, Harper has broken numerous promises since acquiring power, not the least of which, aside from Mr. Williams’ complaint is the Income Trust disaster, to the point of indicating an underlying design.
Robin: How so, Batman.
Batman: Well, Robin, by promising the people of Canada whatever he thinks they want to hear, without the intention of keep it if elected, and saying whatever he thinks is necessary, without the concern for its truth, in order to get them to vote for him and the Con’s.
Robin: Holy “Blue Shaft”, Batman, how can Harper and the Con’s get away with that.
Batman: “Blue Shaft”, Robin? That’s Williams’ line, perhaps you can use something like “Holy Con-Job”. Robin: Thanks, Batman.
Holy “Con-Job”, Batman, how can Harper and the Con’s get away with that.
Batman: By not voting them into power, Robin, and that is exactly what Mr. Williams is talking about and why he refers to a majority Harper government
as “one of the most negative political events in Canadian history.”
Robin: Batman, what are others saying about all this?
Batman: Well, Robin, many people are speaking out.
Robin: Who, who, Batman?
Batman: At the start of this election Campaign Harper said that Dion would increase the GST.
Robin: Not the insidious GST, brought in by the last Conservative government.
Batman: Yes, Robin. Dion immediately responded by, quite unequivocally, stating that Harper was a liar.
Robin: Was he, … I mean, lying, Batman.
Batman: Well, Robin, one might expect that most people would,
when accused of lying, be quick to defend their statement, if indeed it is defensible. Harper has simply seemed to have shrugged it off
- a further indication that these are not mistakes but well thought out and executed attacks with total disregard for whether there is any truth to it.
Robin: Holy ‘Dirty Politics’, Batman, you mean there’s more.
Batman: There are more examples than bats in a belfry, Robin.
When the Harper team attacked the integrity of the father of a fallen war hero, Robin, even Layton felt compelled to point out that “the public only has to listen to the way that Conservative MPs and Harper conduct themselves in the House of Commons.
If you disagree with them, you are open season for an insult.” (Toronto Star, 11 Sep’08).
Then there’s the In-and-Out Election financing scheme, Robin. Harper and the Con’s response was to not only attack the integrity of other Parties, by asserting that they did the
same thing, which is apparently not the case at all, but also that of one of Canada’s most internationally respected institutions – Elections Canada, by accusing them of being biased towards the Liberals.
If Harper and the Con’s really believe that they are not
running afoul of election financing rules then perhaps Harper can show some leadership by stating that the Con’s will be doing the same thing in this election. By not so doing one might infer that these are carefully contrived and executed attacks designed to deflect attention from the real issue.
When Dion announced his Green Shift plan, the Harper response was anything but informed, open and transparent. His comment was "Mr. Dion's policies are crazy. This is crazy economics. It's crazy environmental policy." His ‘considered’ assessment of the plan, as Prime
Minister of Canada, and an economist by training, was that it would “screw everybody across the country”.
Robin: Great Ball of Fear Mongering, Batman. How can the Prime Minister of our great land respond to such important issues with such vulgarities,
devoid of any considered, enlightened or informed thought, but focused entirely on insults and fear mongering.
Batman: These are not slips of the tongue, Robin, but carefully contrived and executed attacks with the intention of playing on people’s fears and
thereby acquiring power, of deflecting attention away from an open and informed discussion of the issues and, of dealing with matters to the benefit of a few and detriment of many.
Robin: Holy, right wing extremism, Batman. Why all the obstruction and obscuration.
Why doesn’t Harper encourage open, informed and transparent discussion of the issues.
Batman: Well, Robin, perhaps they fear people will see them for what they really are – extremist, right wing conservative.
Robin: Great Fraudian Slips, Batman. Then Harper saying the other day that he and the Cons’ “want to pull Canadians towards conservatives” is really a concern that Canadians will begin to realize the extent of their “Hidden Agenda” to make Canada extreme, right wing, conservative.
Batman: Yes, you have something there, Robin. It is how they think and approach everything.
Robin: And when Harper says in his new Ad “investments that will produce results”, ‘results’ refers to implementing the their extreme Conservative Agenda and make our great nation conservative.
Batman: You’re catching on, Robin. And there’s more, Robin. Now Harper is saying the Green Shift will plunge Canada into a recession and destroy national unity causing “all kinds of political tensions across the country."
Robin: Holy ‘hidden meaning’,
Batman, just what does Harper mean by “all kinds of political tensions across the country." It sounds like some kind of right wing extremist code to me.
Batman: Well, Robin, ever since the Firewall letter it has become clearer and clearer that Harper’s intention is to
shift power to the Provinces, in particular, Alberta and weaken Federalism. It appears, that it plays well in Quebec is a bonus for them and they use Quebec as a cover to obscure their real agenda and shift power to Alberta and isolate it from the rest of Canada.
Harper’s inaction on Green House Gas issues, is a prime example of this overall strategy.
Robin: How so, Batman?
Batman: Well, Robin, by not taking action Federally it forces each Province to enact their own policies to reduce
Green-House-Gases, including Alberta. That, in turn gives the Federal government an excuse not to get involved and makes it much more difficult to implement any plan for the overall good of the country.
Robin: Holy ‘Clarity’, Batman, you might say it’s an issue of:
“Each Province acting unilaterally and in its own interest does not a Nation make.”
Robin: What can we do, Batman.
Batman: We can only beseech each and every Canadian to think carefully before casting their vote, especially giving Harper and the Con’s a majority gov’t.
We've got to get our Canada back, Robin, before it's too late.
© Lloyd MacIlquham, all rights reserved, 15 September, 2008 (2008-09-15)
11 September, 2008
- Canadian Election – Fear Mongering by Harper and Layton
Canadian Election...
here is my Comment on the G&M article, 11 Sep, "Green Shift touted as both saviour and damnation"
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080911.welxnlede0911/BNStory/politics/home)
“Fear Mongering” – blatant and misleading – is my response to Harper’s and Layton’s claim that the Green Shift will plunge the economy into recession.
If Harper and Layton are concerned about wealth and power being concentrated they should look at the high price of oil. If they are concerned about our economy going into recession they should look at the large number of manufacturing jobs being lost in Ontario, Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. They should also look at the unfair treatment Ontario receives regarding the distribution of our tax dollars as Ontario’s Premier so justly pointed out just a few days ago and the anti-Ontario attitude of Harper and the Conservative Party.
So far Harper’s response to the Green Shift:
When Dion announced his Green Shift plan, Harper response was anything but informed, open and transparent. His comment was "Mr. Dion's policies are crazy. This is crazy economics. It's crazy environmental policy." His ‘considered’ assessment of the plan, as Prime Minister of Canada, and an economist by training, was that it would “screw everybody across the country”. Now he is saying it will plunge Canada into a recession.
This is not carefully considered rational analysis but is base on fear mongering and insults to the integrity of Dion and the Liberal Party and an insult to the intelligence of the people of Canadian.
Jack Layton is trying to tell us that his environmental polices are “identical” to those of Obama (Toronto Star: “NDP to take aim at PM, shrug off Dion” September 05, 2008.
In reality Layton and the NDP is diametrically opposed to this policy of Obama.. A Foxnews article on 4 Aug., states that “A new Obama ad released Monday trumpets his proposal to revive the windfall profits tax on energy companies . . .
The tax would target “big oil to give families a thousand-dollar rebate,” an announcer in the ad says. Obama has pushed for such a tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs.”
This is clearly along the same lines as the Dion Green Shift and has nothing to do with a ‘cap-and-trade system’, which is the heart of the Layton’s environmental polices.
Danny Williams suggested the Liberal have the ‘Green Shift’ and the Conservatives have the ‘Blue Shaft’ now we have the NDP ‘Orange Sham’.
here is my Comment on the G&M article, 11 Sep, "Green Shift touted as both saviour and damnation"
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080911.welxnlede0911/BNStory/politics/home)
“Fear Mongering” – blatant and misleading – is my response to Harper’s and Layton’s claim that the Green Shift will plunge the economy into recession.
If Harper and Layton are concerned about wealth and power being concentrated they should look at the high price of oil. If they are concerned about our economy going into recession they should look at the large number of manufacturing jobs being lost in Ontario, Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. They should also look at the unfair treatment Ontario receives regarding the distribution of our tax dollars as Ontario’s Premier so justly pointed out just a few days ago and the anti-Ontario attitude of Harper and the Conservative Party.
So far Harper’s response to the Green Shift:
When Dion announced his Green Shift plan, Harper response was anything but informed, open and transparent. His comment was "Mr. Dion's policies are crazy. This is crazy economics. It's crazy environmental policy." His ‘considered’ assessment of the plan, as Prime Minister of Canada, and an economist by training, was that it would “screw everybody across the country”. Now he is saying it will plunge Canada into a recession.
This is not carefully considered rational analysis but is base on fear mongering and insults to the integrity of Dion and the Liberal Party and an insult to the intelligence of the people of Canadian.
Jack Layton is trying to tell us that his environmental polices are “identical” to those of Obama (Toronto Star: “NDP to take aim at PM, shrug off Dion” September 05, 2008.
In reality Layton and the NDP is diametrically opposed to this policy of Obama.. A Foxnews article on 4 Aug., states that “A new Obama ad released Monday trumpets his proposal to revive the windfall profits tax on energy companies . . .
The tax would target “big oil to give families a thousand-dollar rebate,” an announcer in the ad says. Obama has pushed for such a tax to fund $1,000 emergency rebate checks for consumers besieged by high energy costs.”
This is clearly along the same lines as the Dion Green Shift and has nothing to do with a ‘cap-and-trade system’, which is the heart of the Layton’s environmental polices.
Danny Williams suggested the Liberal have the ‘Green Shift’ and the Conservatives have the ‘Blue Shaft’ now we have the NDP ‘Orange Sham’.
09 September, 2008
- Canadian Election: Is this the kind of leader we want for our country
Canadian Election: Is this the kind of leader we want for our country
I grew up in the Beaches and went to Grade School and High School there. This Summer I came back to visit and went to the Beaches Jazz Festival. It was almost like I never left. It is very much ‘you can take the boy out of the Beaches but you can’t take the Beaches out of the boy’.
One thing I learned growing up, both inside and outside school, was to view things with an open mind, not to have preconceived notions about how things should be and to be able to adjust my thinking as I am confronted with new information and a new context.
I grew up in a very much an open, free and tolerant community, where informed, open and transparent discussion was always the order of the day. And, I know I wasn’t the only one.
I am saying this now because I think that all those living in the Beaches ought to consider this when deciding how to vote.
Any party that is ideologically driven can, by definition, not be free in their views since their views are based on preconceived notions about what is right and what is wrong and not open to change.
They can not have open discussions since invariably someone will confront them with a reality that is diametrically opposed to their way of thinking and which might require them to somehow admit that their position is wrong.
They cannot be transparent since that would expose the weakness in their position. They can only obscure and obstruct. Their arguments boil down to “I’m right – you’re wrong”. They are very reluctant to expose themselves to rational analysis and attempt to keep the discussion at an irrational, emotional level.
They consider implementing their ideology without consideration to anything else as being ‘decisive’; and, taking time to listen to the other side of an issue and perhaps adapting and adjusting their position as called for to be a sign of weakness and lacking in leadership.
You can see all this with Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party which is motivated by extreme right wing ideology. It seems to me that there are many examples of Harper and the Conservative party obscuring issues and obstructing attempts to get at the truth. Harper and the Conservatives deal with issues not by open, free and transparent debate but by appealing to people emotions and, of course, hurling insults. Their attacks are designed on an emotional level.
I was listening to a Conservative strategist on 6 Sep. (Geoff Norquay, I believe) who stated that Harper [is someone] “who knows where he wants to take the country”. It seems to me that his type of statement is indicative of extreme right wing ideology. First of all it is referring to where “he [Harper]” wants to take the country and leave no room for debate, consultation or consideration of other points of view. That a majority of people in Canada may not want to go where he wants to take them is not a consideration to Harper or the Conservatives. That a majority of people in Canada are not made privy to where Harper and the Conservatives want to go is no accident.
Second, it is anything but transparent – it is based on the belief that the important thing is that Harper knows and whether we, the people, know is not a consideration. This statement is designed to be dynamic and decisive. But, it is appeals to the emotions and not the intellect. This statement is not a slip of the tongue either, since last October he was quoted as saying “After 18 months, I think the PM and the cabinet have a much clearer sense of what the issues are and the direction that they want to take the country" (Toronto Star, “Harper, Tories riding high”, October 22, 2007). It is where they want to take the country that has any significance to them. Given that Harper and the Conservative had a minority government it is actually quite startling to see things phrased in such one-sided, uncompromising terms. It is clearly a manifestation of extreme ideology, in this case right wing.
Global Warming is, of course, a prime example. Nothing in my lifetime, except in the ‘60s with the threat of nuclear war, has there been such a grave threat to our fundamental way of life than Global Warming. It’s seriousness is heightened by the fact that it may be decades before the full extent of the impact will be felt. It is not my generation that will suffer the most but our children and their children.
Any political leader that proposes significant steps be taken ought to be considered with the utmost seriousness. When Dion announced his Green Shift plan, Harper response was anything but informed, open and transparent. His comment was "Mr. Dion's policies are crazy. This is crazy economics. It's crazy environmental policy." His ‘considered’ assessment of the plan, as Prime Minister of Canada, and an economist by training, was that it would “screw everybody across the country”. This is not carefully considered rational analysis but is base insults to the integrity of Dion and the Liberal Party and an insult to the intelligence of the people of Canadian. It is deliberately aimed to play on people’s emotions and fears. When Dion recently explained that after consultation with many people throughout the country he would, within the Green Shift policy, increase benefits for farmers, etc., to offset their use of diesel fuel, the Harper and Conservative response was that Dion is indecisive, flip-flopping and not a leader. How can anyone suggest that informed, open and transparent discussion to the benefit of all Canadians is indecision and lacking in leadership, unless of course they are motivated be extremist beliefs.
Is this the kind of leader we want for our country. Is this where we want to be taken.
Former prime minister Jean Chrétien criticized Harper for his in-your-face [my words] diplomacy with China. This is a very important issue. For example, many billions of dollars flow from Canada to China every year. Tourism from China would allow us to recoup some of this and would offset the loss of tourists from the US and from within Canada (due to the high price of gasoline and the Canadian dollar). The main obstacle to the floodgates of tourists from China coming to Canada is the Harper approach to diplomacy with the Chinese government. Rather than engaging in an open, informed and rational discussion of this very important matter to which Chrétien was drawing attention, the response by the Conservative Party was to attack Chrétien’s integrity (by asserting that Chretien’s China policy was influenced by his post-politics business plans, and the interests of rich and powerful friends - G&M, “Personal financial interest behind Chrétien attack on PM's China policy, Kenney says”, August 20, 2008). Chrétien pointed out that Harper not attending the Olympics would have been considered an insult by the Chinese government and that it was likely politically motivated. Rather than explain his decision not to attend, something that all Canadian have a right to know, we are left wondering why. Perhaps, when it gets right down to it, the Chinese government simply did not invite him because of his approach to them and he didn’t want Canadians to know the true impact of his ‘in-your-face’ diplomacy.
This response was no slip of the tongue by a rogue MP. This is a deliberate attempt to obscure and obstruct. For example, when Elections Canada executed a search warrant of Conservative Party headquarters. The Conservative Party’s response was to attack the integrity of Elections Canada. When confronted with the Cadmen tape, their response was to challenge the integrity of the tape.
Is this the kind of leader we want for our country. Is this where we want to be taken.
Lloyd MacIlquham
I grew up in the Beaches and went to Grade School and High School there. This Summer I came back to visit and went to the Beaches Jazz Festival. It was almost like I never left. It is very much ‘you can take the boy out of the Beaches but you can’t take the Beaches out of the boy’.
One thing I learned growing up, both inside and outside school, was to view things with an open mind, not to have preconceived notions about how things should be and to be able to adjust my thinking as I am confronted with new information and a new context.
I grew up in a very much an open, free and tolerant community, where informed, open and transparent discussion was always the order of the day. And, I know I wasn’t the only one.
I am saying this now because I think that all those living in the Beaches ought to consider this when deciding how to vote.
Any party that is ideologically driven can, by definition, not be free in their views since their views are based on preconceived notions about what is right and what is wrong and not open to change.
They can not have open discussions since invariably someone will confront them with a reality that is diametrically opposed to their way of thinking and which might require them to somehow admit that their position is wrong.
They cannot be transparent since that would expose the weakness in their position. They can only obscure and obstruct. Their arguments boil down to “I’m right – you’re wrong”. They are very reluctant to expose themselves to rational analysis and attempt to keep the discussion at an irrational, emotional level.
They consider implementing their ideology without consideration to anything else as being ‘decisive’; and, taking time to listen to the other side of an issue and perhaps adapting and adjusting their position as called for to be a sign of weakness and lacking in leadership.
You can see all this with Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party which is motivated by extreme right wing ideology. It seems to me that there are many examples of Harper and the Conservative party obscuring issues and obstructing attempts to get at the truth. Harper and the Conservatives deal with issues not by open, free and transparent debate but by appealing to people emotions and, of course, hurling insults. Their attacks are designed on an emotional level.
I was listening to a Conservative strategist on 6 Sep. (Geoff Norquay, I believe) who stated that Harper [is someone] “who knows where he wants to take the country”. It seems to me that his type of statement is indicative of extreme right wing ideology. First of all it is referring to where “he [Harper]” wants to take the country and leave no room for debate, consultation or consideration of other points of view. That a majority of people in Canada may not want to go where he wants to take them is not a consideration to Harper or the Conservatives. That a majority of people in Canada are not made privy to where Harper and the Conservatives want to go is no accident.
Second, it is anything but transparent – it is based on the belief that the important thing is that Harper knows and whether we, the people, know is not a consideration. This statement is designed to be dynamic and decisive. But, it is appeals to the emotions and not the intellect. This statement is not a slip of the tongue either, since last October he was quoted as saying “After 18 months, I think the PM and the cabinet have a much clearer sense of what the issues are and the direction that they want to take the country" (Toronto Star, “Harper, Tories riding high”, October 22, 2007). It is where they want to take the country that has any significance to them. Given that Harper and the Conservative had a minority government it is actually quite startling to see things phrased in such one-sided, uncompromising terms. It is clearly a manifestation of extreme ideology, in this case right wing.
Global Warming is, of course, a prime example. Nothing in my lifetime, except in the ‘60s with the threat of nuclear war, has there been such a grave threat to our fundamental way of life than Global Warming. It’s seriousness is heightened by the fact that it may be decades before the full extent of the impact will be felt. It is not my generation that will suffer the most but our children and their children.
Any political leader that proposes significant steps be taken ought to be considered with the utmost seriousness. When Dion announced his Green Shift plan, Harper response was anything but informed, open and transparent. His comment was "Mr. Dion's policies are crazy. This is crazy economics. It's crazy environmental policy." His ‘considered’ assessment of the plan, as Prime Minister of Canada, and an economist by training, was that it would “screw everybody across the country”. This is not carefully considered rational analysis but is base insults to the integrity of Dion and the Liberal Party and an insult to the intelligence of the people of Canadian. It is deliberately aimed to play on people’s emotions and fears. When Dion recently explained that after consultation with many people throughout the country he would, within the Green Shift policy, increase benefits for farmers, etc., to offset their use of diesel fuel, the Harper and Conservative response was that Dion is indecisive, flip-flopping and not a leader. How can anyone suggest that informed, open and transparent discussion to the benefit of all Canadians is indecision and lacking in leadership, unless of course they are motivated be extremist beliefs.
Is this the kind of leader we want for our country. Is this where we want to be taken.
Former prime minister Jean Chrétien criticized Harper for his in-your-face [my words] diplomacy with China. This is a very important issue. For example, many billions of dollars flow from Canada to China every year. Tourism from China would allow us to recoup some of this and would offset the loss of tourists from the US and from within Canada (due to the high price of gasoline and the Canadian dollar). The main obstacle to the floodgates of tourists from China coming to Canada is the Harper approach to diplomacy with the Chinese government. Rather than engaging in an open, informed and rational discussion of this very important matter to which Chrétien was drawing attention, the response by the Conservative Party was to attack Chrétien’s integrity (by asserting that Chretien’s China policy was influenced by his post-politics business plans, and the interests of rich and powerful friends - G&M, “Personal financial interest behind Chrétien attack on PM's China policy, Kenney says”, August 20, 2008). Chrétien pointed out that Harper not attending the Olympics would have been considered an insult by the Chinese government and that it was likely politically motivated. Rather than explain his decision not to attend, something that all Canadian have a right to know, we are left wondering why. Perhaps, when it gets right down to it, the Chinese government simply did not invite him because of his approach to them and he didn’t want Canadians to know the true impact of his ‘in-your-face’ diplomacy.
This response was no slip of the tongue by a rogue MP. This is a deliberate attempt to obscure and obstruct. For example, when Elections Canada executed a search warrant of Conservative Party headquarters. The Conservative Party’s response was to attack the integrity of Elections Canada. When confronted with the Cadmen tape, their response was to challenge the integrity of the tape.
Is this the kind of leader we want for our country. Is this where we want to be taken.
Lloyd MacIlquham
04 September, 2008
- The legality of Harper calling a General Election 3
I also submitted this (after editing slightly to meet the 2000 character limitation) for the Monahan Webcast, but apparently was not considered:
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080829.wlivegg03/CommentStory/specialComment/home)
With all due respect, I found your opinion as set out in "The request the G-G can't refuse" to be quite weak (see comments by “Lloyd MacIlquham”).
However, of much greater concern is the possibility (see comment by R Miller from Halifax) that perhaps you might have ties to the Conservatives in that you may have ties to the Fraser Institute a (in my view) very right wing conservative think tank boasting amongst its ranks, Preston Manning (Senior Fellow) and Mike Harris (Senior Fellow) and so your opinion may be biased. Of course, everyone is entitled to express their opinions, even if it is biased and politically motivated. However, when they are presented as being the head of a prestigious academic institution, especially in Law, it seems to me that people look for an objective, disinterested assessment of the situation (see comment by: brian bishop from Brantford, Canada) and not someone using their position to promote their personal, subjective views and interests.
Please clarify. Lloyd MacIlquham
R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Slightly off topic, but as an academic, would Professor Monahan have to publically disclose whether he has had an association or financial assistance from any of the following groups ?
-The Civitas Society,
-The Fraser Institute
-The Atlantic Institute of Market Studies
-The Donner Institute
It would seem somewhat relevant before presenting an opinion piece arguing that a Governor General cannot refuse a Prime Minister's request for an election which is certainly far from clear from precedent, Bill C-16 or this discussion.
If Professor Monahan was printing this article for a reputable legal journal, would he not have to disclose possible conflicts of interest as is done for publications in medical journals ?
brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: It would be in everyone's best interest to read Patrick Monahan's bio before posting frivolous uneducated rebuttals towards his article! …
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080829.wlivegg03/CommentStory/specialComment/home)
With all due respect, I found your opinion as set out in "The request the G-G can't refuse" to be quite weak (see comments by “Lloyd MacIlquham”).
However, of much greater concern is the possibility (see comment by R Miller from Halifax) that perhaps you might have ties to the Conservatives in that you may have ties to the Fraser Institute a (in my view) very right wing conservative think tank boasting amongst its ranks, Preston Manning (Senior Fellow) and Mike Harris (Senior Fellow) and so your opinion may be biased. Of course, everyone is entitled to express their opinions, even if it is biased and politically motivated. However, when they are presented as being the head of a prestigious academic institution, especially in Law, it seems to me that people look for an objective, disinterested assessment of the situation (see comment by: brian bishop from Brantford, Canada) and not someone using their position to promote their personal, subjective views and interests.
Please clarify. Lloyd MacIlquham
R Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Slightly off topic, but as an academic, would Professor Monahan have to publically disclose whether he has had an association or financial assistance from any of the following groups ?
-The Civitas Society,
-The Fraser Institute
-The Atlantic Institute of Market Studies
-The Donner Institute
It would seem somewhat relevant before presenting an opinion piece arguing that a Governor General cannot refuse a Prime Minister's request for an election which is certainly far from clear from precedent, Bill C-16 or this discussion.
If Professor Monahan was printing this article for a reputable legal journal, would he not have to disclose possible conflicts of interest as is done for publications in medical journals ?
brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: It would be in everyone's best interest to read Patrick Monahan's bio before posting frivolous uneducated rebuttals towards his article! …
- The legality of Harper calling a General Election 2
I submitted this for the Monahan Webcast, but apparently was not considered:
[Monahan, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080829.wlivegg03/BNStory/specialComment/home/
"The first point to recognize is that, under Westminster-style parliamentary systems such as our own, a prime minister has virtually absolute discretion to determine the date of a general election.”]
It seems to me that one must be very careful when comparing our system to the English (“Westminster” systems) since they differ in one very important aspect which is central to the issue at hand. We have a Constitution (and a Charter) which is the Paramount Law of the Land. Tradition does not trump the Constitution in Canada. In England, to my understanding anyway, Tradition is the constitution and there is no “Constitution” to trump it. In Canada, Tradition may be persuasive provided it does not go contrary to the Constitution or the Laws of Canada, both in the letter and the intent, otherwise our Constitution and Laws become ancillary and whole basis for the rule of law collapses into anarchy. Your opinion does not seem to touch on this, essential difference at all.
You assert “a firm constitutional requirement that she will exercise her powers only on the advice of the prime minister”. However, this is the issue. It may be that this tradition may not go against the letter of the Constitution (although this is debatable) but it certainly goes against the application of Bill C-16 in both its meaning and intent. If the provisions of Bill C-16 are to mean anything and there is a presumption that they do, then they must free the GG hands to dissolved parliament under these circumstances. One of the things that the GG ought to determine is if, in fact, the government does not enjoy the confidence of Parliament and this can only, in this circumstance anyway, be determined while Parliament is sitting. It would seem prudent that the Governor general obtain a ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada. Of course, if the government of the day requests that parliament be dissolved and does not co-operate in resolving this issue, the GG could turn to the opposing parties to see if they could form a government, if only long enough to have this issue resolved.
Lloyd MacIlquham
[Monahan, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080829.wlivegg03/BNStory/specialComment/home/
"The first point to recognize is that, under Westminster-style parliamentary systems such as our own, a prime minister has virtually absolute discretion to determine the date of a general election.”]
It seems to me that one must be very careful when comparing our system to the English (“Westminster” systems) since they differ in one very important aspect which is central to the issue at hand. We have a Constitution (and a Charter) which is the Paramount Law of the Land. Tradition does not trump the Constitution in Canada. In England, to my understanding anyway, Tradition is the constitution and there is no “Constitution” to trump it. In Canada, Tradition may be persuasive provided it does not go contrary to the Constitution or the Laws of Canada, both in the letter and the intent, otherwise our Constitution and Laws become ancillary and whole basis for the rule of law collapses into anarchy. Your opinion does not seem to touch on this, essential difference at all.
You assert “a firm constitutional requirement that she will exercise her powers only on the advice of the prime minister”. However, this is the issue. It may be that this tradition may not go against the letter of the Constitution (although this is debatable) but it certainly goes against the application of Bill C-16 in both its meaning and intent. If the provisions of Bill C-16 are to mean anything and there is a presumption that they do, then they must free the GG hands to dissolved parliament under these circumstances. One of the things that the GG ought to determine is if, in fact, the government does not enjoy the confidence of Parliament and this can only, in this circumstance anyway, be determined while Parliament is sitting. It would seem prudent that the Governor general obtain a ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada. Of course, if the government of the day requests that parliament be dissolved and does not co-operate in resolving this issue, the GG could turn to the opposing parties to see if they could form a government, if only long enough to have this issue resolved.
Lloyd MacIlquham
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)